Gene therapy for people with hepatocellular carcinoma.

Cho Naing, Han Ni, Htar Htar Aung, Norah Htet Htet, Dimitrinka Nikolova
Author Information
  1. Cho Naing: Division of Tropical Health and Medicine, James Cook University, Queensland, Australia.
  2. Han Ni: Department of Medicine, Newcastle University Medicine Malaysia, Johor, Malaysia.
  3. Htar Htar Aung: School of Medicine, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  4. Norah Htet Htet: School of Medicine, IMU University, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
  5. Dimitrinka Nikolova: Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group, Copenhagen Trial Unit, Centre for Clinical Intervention Research, The Capital Region, Copenhagen University Hospital ��� Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen, Denmark.

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Hepatocellular carcinoma is the most common type of liver cancer, accounting for 70% to 85% of individuals with primary liver cancer. Gene therapy, which uses genes to treat or prevent diseases, holds potential for treatment, especially for tumours. Trials on the effects of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma have been published or are ongoing.
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of gene therapy in people with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of sex, administered dose, and type of formulation.
SEARCH METHODS: We identified randomised clinical trials through electronic searches in The Cochrane Hepato-Biliary Group Controlled Trials Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, LILACS, Science Citation Index Expanded, and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science. We searched five online clinical trial registries to identify unpublished or ongoing trials. We checked reference lists of the retrieved studies for further trials. The date of last search was 20 January 2023.
SELECTION CRITERIA: We aimed to include randomised clinical trials assessing any type of gene therapy in people diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, irrespective of year, language of publication, format, or outcomes reported.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed Cochrane methodology and used Review Manager to prepare the review. The primary outcomes were all-cause mortality/overall survival (whatever data were provided), serious adverse events during treatment, and health-related quality of life. The secondary outcomes were proportion of people with disease progression, adverse events considered non-serious, and proportion of people without improvement in liver function tests. We assessed risk of bias of the included trials using RoB 2 and the certainty of evidence using GRADE. We presented the results of time-to-event outcomes as hazard ratios (HR), dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RR), and continuous outcomes as mean difference (MD) with their 95% confidence intervals (CI). Our primary analyses were based on intention-to-treat and outcome data at the longest follow-up.
MAIN RESULTS: We included six randomised clinical trials with 364 participants. The participants had unresectable (i.e. advanced inoperable) hepatocellular carcinoma. We found no trials assessing the effects of gene therapy in people with operable hepatocellular carcinoma. Four trials were conducted in China, one in several countries (from North America, Asia, and Europe), and one in Egypt. The number of participants in the six trials ranged from 10 to 129 (median 47), median age was 55.2 years, and the mean proportion of males was 72.7%. The follow-up duration ranged from six months to five years. As the trials compared different types of gene therapy and had different controls, we could not perform meta-analyses. Five of the six trials administered co-interventions equally to the experimental and control groups. All trials assessed one or more outcomes of interest in this review. The certainty of evidence was very low in five of the six comparisons and low in the double-dose gene therapy comparison. Below, we reported the results of the primary outcomes only. Pexastimogene devacirepvec (Pexa-Vec) plus best supportive care versus best supportive care alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of Pexa-Vec plus best supportive care compared with best supportive care alone on overall survival (HR 1.19, 95% CI 0.78 to 1.82; 1 trial (censored observation at 20-month follow-up), 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and on serious adverse events (RR 1.42, 95% CI 0.60 to 3.33; 1 trial at 20 months after treatment, 129 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial reported quality of life narratively as "assessment of quality of life and time to symptomatic progression was confounded by the high patient dropout rate." adenovirus-thymidine kinase with ganciclovir (ADV-TK/GCV) plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at the two-year follow-up (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.20 to 0.76; 1 trial, 45 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation alone There is uncertainty about whether double-dose ADV-TK/GCV plus liver transplantation versus liver transplantation may benefit all-cause mortality at five-year follow-up (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.22 to 0.73; 1 trial, 86 participants; low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events other than mortality or quality of life. Recombinant human adenovirus-p53 with hydroxycamptothecin (rAd-p53/HCT) versus hydroxycamptothecin alone There is uncertainty about whether there may be little to no difference between the effect of rAd-p53/HCT versus hydroxycamptothecin alone on the overall survival at 12-month follow-up (RR 3.06, 95% CI 0.16 to 60.47; 1 trial, 48 participants; very low-certainty evidence). The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. rAd-p53/5-Fu (5-fluorouracil) plus transarterial chemoembolisation versus transarterial chemoembolisation alone The trial included 46 participants. We had insufficient data to assess overall survival. The trial did not report serious adverse events or quality of life. E1B-deleted (dl1520) adenovirus versus percutaneous ethanol injection The trial included 10 participants. It did not report data on overall survival, serious adverse events, or health-related quality of life. One trial did not provide any information on sponsorship; one trial received a national research grant, one trial by the Pedersen foundation, and three were industry-funded trials. We found five ongoing randomised clinical trials.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence is very uncertain about the effects of gene therapy on the studied outcomes because of high risk of bias and imprecision of outcome results. The trials were underpowered and lacked trial data on clinically important outcomes. There was only one trial per comparison, and we could not perform meta-analyses. Therefore, we do not know if gene therapy may reduce, increase, or have little to no effect on all-cause mortality or overall survival, or serious adverse events in adults with unresectable hepatocellular carcinoma. The impact of gene therapy on adverse events needs to be investigated further. Evidence on the effect of gene therapy on health-related quality of life is lacking.

References

  1. Gastroenterology. 2005 Jun;128(7):1787-95 [PMID: 15940613]
  2. Gastroenterology. 2016 Apr;150(4):835-53 [PMID: 26795574]
  3. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020 Nov 30;11:CD007652 [PMID: 33251574]
  4. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Mar 16;(3):CD004787 [PMID: 21412886]
  5. J Clin Oncol. 2016 May 20;34(15):1787-94 [PMID: 27044939]
  6. Int J Cancer. 2001 Oct 15;94(2):153-6 [PMID: 11668491]
  7. Gastroenterology. 2005 Jun;128(7):2029-41 [PMID: 15940635]
  8. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018 May 09;5:CD012069 [PMID: 29744873]
  9. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2010 Oct 01;10:90 [PMID: 20920306]
  10. Anticancer Drugs. 2009 Jun;20(5):389-95 [PMID: 19287305]
  11. Clin Cancer Res. 2007 Oct 1;13(19):5847-54 [PMID: 17908978]
  12. Hepatology. 2018 Aug;68(2):723-750 [PMID: 29624699]
  13. Hepatology. 2012 Jan;55(1):132-40 [PMID: 21932387]
  14. Int J Cancer. 2016 Oct 1;139(7):1534-45 [PMID: 27244487]
  15. J Clin Exp Hepatol. 2014 Aug;4(Suppl 3):S130-9 [PMID: 25755605]
  16. Hepat Mon. 2012 Oct;12(10 HCC):e5943 [PMID: 23162599]
  17. Nat Med. 2013 Mar;19(3):329-36 [PMID: 23396206]
  18. J Virol. 2005 Sep;79(17):11434-42 [PMID: 16103194]
  19. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71 [PMID: 33782057]
  20. J Hepatol. 2019 Jan;70(1):151-171 [PMID: 30266282]
  21. Lancet. 2018 Mar 31;391(10127):1301-1314 [PMID: 29307467]
  22. Hum Gene Ther. 2020 Jan;31(1-2):20-46 [PMID: 31802714]
  23. Trials. 2007 Jun 07;8:16 [PMID: 17555582]
  24. Science. 2018 Jan 12;359(6372): [PMID: 29326244]
  25. Methods Mol Biol. 2015;1317:343-57 [PMID: 26072416]
  26. Nature. 2022 Jan;601(7892):167 [PMID: 35017708]
  27. Cancer Gene Ther. 2002 Dec;9(12):1022-35 [PMID: 12522441]
  28. Rhinology. 2012 Jun;50(2):115-21 [PMID: 22616071]
  29. Cancers (Basel). 2022 Jun 04;14(11): [PMID: 35681776]
  30. Am J Clin Oncol. 2014 Feb;37(1):24-9 [PMID: 24457472]
  31. J Hepatol. 2006 Oct;45(4):529-38 [PMID: 16879891]
  32. Nat Med. 1997 Mar;3(3):313-9 [PMID: 9055859]
  33. Genes Dis. 2017 Jun;4(2):43-63 [PMID: 28944281]
  34. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 16;2:MR000033 [PMID: 28207928]
  35. Curr Drug Targets. 2014 Jan;15(1):2-16 [PMID: 24387338]
  36. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2014 Mar 04;14:34 [PMID: 24588900]
  37. Med Oncol. 2014 Aug;31(8):95 [PMID: 24990099]
  38. Lancet Oncol. 2008 Jun;9(6):533-42 [PMID: 18495536]
  39. J Gen Virol. 2015 Jul;96(Pt 7):1533-50 [PMID: 25711964]
  40. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2024 Jun 4;6:CD013731 [PMID: 38837373]
  41. Br J Cancer. 2018 Apr;118(7):1005-1012 [PMID: 29520041]
  42. J Hepatol. 2000 Feb;32(2):344-51 [PMID: 10707877]
  43. J Gastroenterol. 2009;44 Suppl 19:89-95 [PMID: 19148800]
  44. Cancers (Basel). 2019 Aug 28;11(9): [PMID: 31466358]
  45. Hepatology. 2023 Dec 1;78(6):1922-1965 [PMID: 37199193]
  46. Hepat Oncol. 2014 Oct;1(4):433-446 [PMID: 30190978]
  47. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Dec 1;5(12):1749-1768 [PMID: 31560378]
  48. Ann Oncol. 2021 Jun;32(6):801-805 [PMID: 33716105]
  49. World J Gastroenterol. 2006 Oct 14;12(38):6085-97 [PMID: 17036377]
  50. Int J Epidemiol. 1992 Oct;21(5):837-41 [PMID: 1468842]
  51. Lancet Oncol. 2023 Jul;24(7):e312-e322 [PMID: 37414020]
  52. Oncotarget. 2016 Feb 9;7(6):6639-48 [PMID: 26735891]
  53. Int J Cancer. 2006 Apr 15;118(8):2064-71 [PMID: 16287067]
  54. J Gene Med. 2018 May;20(5):e3015 [PMID: 29575374]
  55. N Engl J Med. 2014 Nov 20;371(21):1994-2004 [PMID: 25409372]
  56. Mol Ther. 2016 Mar;24(3):430-46 [PMID: 26755333]
  57. Hum Gene Ther. 2015 Jun;26(6):377-85 [PMID: 25808258]
  58. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Jan 4;1:CD013345 [PMID: 34981511]
  59. BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n160 [PMID: 33781993]
  60. N Engl J Med. 2011 Sep 22;365(12):1118-27 [PMID: 21992124]
  61. BMC Cancer. 2021 Oct 29;21(1):1157 [PMID: 34715816]
  62. Oncoimmunology. 2019 Jun 3;8(8):1615817 [PMID: 31413923]
  63. Hum Gene Ther. 2018 Feb;29(2):251-258 [PMID: 29446997]
  64. BioDrugs. 2017 Aug;31(4):317-334 [PMID: 28669112]
  65. Hepatology. 2011 Mar;53(3):1020-2 [PMID: 21374666]
  66. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018 Nov;68(6):394-424 [PMID: 30207593]
  67. J Transl Med. 2014 Apr 08;12:93 [PMID: 24708807]
  68. Cell Biochem Biophys. 2015 Jan;71(1):99-104 [PMID: 25323562]
  69. Science. 2003 Oct 17;302(5644):415-9 [PMID: 14564000]
  70. BMJ. 1999 Sep 11;319(7211):670-4 [PMID: 10480822]
  71. World J Gastroenterol. 2011 Apr 28;17(16):2143-9 [PMID: 21547136]
  72. Eur J Dermatol. 2011 Nov-Dec;21(6):1015-6 [PMID: 21926043]
  73. Stat Med. 1998 Dec 30;17(24):2815-34 [PMID: 9921604]
  74. Am J Epidemiol. 2018 May 1;187(5):1113-1122 [PMID: 29126260]
  75. Nat Rev Dis Primers. 2021 Jan 21;7(1):6 [PMID: 33479224]
  76. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2009 Dec 30;9:86 [PMID: 20042080]
  77. Nat Rev Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2021 Aug;18(8):525-543 [PMID: 33850328]
  78. Cancer Gene Ther. 2002 Mar;9(3):254-9 [PMID: 11896441]
  79. Cancer Gene Ther. 2010 Dec;17(12):837-43 [PMID: 20689572]
  80. Exp Ther Med. 2020 Nov;20(5):18 [PMID: 32934683]
  81. Gut. 2002 Jan;50(1):130-5 [PMID: 11772981]
  82. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Mar 6;17(1):39 [PMID: 28264661]

MeSH Term

Humans
Carcinoma, Hepatocellular
Liver Neoplasms
Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
Genetic Therapy
Quality of Life
Bias
Male
Cause of Death
Female
Middle Aged

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0trialtrialstherapylivergeneoutcomesadverseeventsparticipantsqualitylife0carcinomaseriousevidenceversus1peoplehepatocellularplusalonetransplantationsurvival95%CIfollow-uponeclinicaldataRRsixmayoveralllow-certaintymortalityreportprimaryrandomisedfiveall-causeincludedbestsupportivecareuncertaintywhethereffectADV-TK/GCVtypetreatmenteffectsongoing20reportedhealth-relatedproportionriskresultsdifference129littlehydroxycamptothecincancerGeneTrialsirrespectiveadministeredCochraneCitationassessingreviewprogressionassessedbiasusing2certaintyratiosHRmeanoutcomeunresectablefoundranged10median47yearsmonthscompareddifferentperformmeta-analyseslowdouble-dosecomparisonPexa-Vec603highbenefitrAd-p53/HCTtransarterialchemoembolisationBACKGROUND:Hepatocellularcommonaccounting70%85%individualsusesgenestreatpreventdiseasesholdspotentialespeciallytumourspublishedOBJECTIVES:evaluatebenefitsharmssexdoseformulationSEARCHMETHODS:identifiedelectronicsearchesHepato-BiliaryGroupControlledRegisterCENTRALMEDLINEEmbaseLILACSScienceIndexExpandedConferenceProceedingsIndex-SciencesearchedonlineregistriesidentifyunpublishedcheckedreferencelistsretrievedstudiesdatelastsearchJanuary2023SELECTIONCRITERIA:aimedincludediagnosedyearlanguagepublicationformatDATACOLLECTIONANDANALYSIS:followedmethodologyusedReviewManagerpreparemortality/overallwhateverprovidedsecondarydiseaseconsiderednon-seriouswithoutimprovementfunctiontestsRoBGRADEpresentedtime-to-eventhazarddichotomouscontinuousMDconfidenceintervalsanalysesbasedintention-to-treatlongestMAINRESULTS:364ieadvancedinoperableoperableFourconductedChinaseveralcountriesNorthAmericaAsiaEuropeEgyptnumberage55males727%durationtypescontrolsFiveco-interventionsequallyexperimentalcontrolgroupsinterestcomparisonsPexastimogenedevacirepvec197882censoredobservation20-month4233narratively"assessmenttimesymptomaticconfoundedpatientdropoutrate"Adenovirus-thymidinekinaseganciclovirtwo-year397645Double-dosefive-year40227386Recombinanthumanadenovirus-p5312-month061648rAd-p53/5-Fu5-fluorouracil46insufficientassessE1B-deleteddl1520adenoviruspercutaneousethanolinjectionOneprovideinformationsponsorshipreceivednationalresearchgrantPedersenfoundationthreeindustry-fundedAUTHORS'CONCLUSIONS:uncertainstudiedimprecisionunderpoweredlackedclinicallyimportantperThereforeknowreduceincreaseadultsimpactneedsinvestigatedEvidencelacking

Similar Articles

Cited By (5)